These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[December] Missile Disruptors and Tweaks to Missile Guidance Mods

First post First post
Author
Spugg Galdon
Last Rites.
Infinite Pew
#301 - 2015-10-06 11:21:49 UTC
elitatwo wrote:


I agree. What would you think making defender missiles work for a change? .




Okay, from a previous few posts I have condensed my thoughts on a valid point defense system as an alternative to “Tracking Disruptors” for missiles.

Why don't we have functioning, smart, point defense systems? A point defense system that can shoot down drones and missiles? It would actually make far more sense than a "Missile Tracking Disruptor"

The module would be a simple high slot module, not a launcher or turret. This allows it to be fitted in any high slot. The module could either be sized or could have a very unique fitting attribute in that it uses a percentage of the ships CPU and PG meaning it can be fitted to any sized ship. This style of fitting attribute would reflect in the number of point defense battery’s fitted to a ship dependant on the overall size of the ship.

The racial Point Defense System (PDS) would then have three different ammo types:
Anti Missile
Anti Drone
Anti Bomb

These ammo types would all deal a "special" type of damage. For arguments sake, we'll call it "Snowflake". Snowflake is a special damage type that is "invisible" to the player. You will never see snowflake damage or resists in any “Show Info” window. All items other than missiles, drones and bombs have a 100% resistance to it.

This will prevent PDS being used as an offensive weapon.

Now, the PDS is activated on a target ship, just like defender missiles work now. If you are using anti missile ammo, that ship will require to be launching missiles for it to activate. Same goes for drones. The PDS will then shoot down missiles or drones that the targeted ship “owns” effectively.

If Anti Bomb ammo is loaded, it will work exactly how FoF/Auto Targeting missiles work now with the caveat that their only valid target are bombs. This will allow the ship to effectively defend against bombers without having to target the bombs/bombers themselves.

Guess what else all of this would fix? !!Bombers!!

Ammo reload takes 30 seconds which can give windows of opportunity.

It could even be racial!

Amarr point defense lasers would be best vs missiles - instant damage, good range but poor tracking vs drones at short range.

Caldari point defense missiles would be the "all rounder". Okay vs drones and missiles due to not requiring tracking but travel time

Galente Point Defense Blasters would be best vs drones - poor range but excellent application and damage

Minmatar Point Defense Guns would be another all rounder but lower projection with higher RoF.

I can't tell you how much I would love a Destroyer hull fitted out with point defense flying amongst the fleet performing the "Screening" role. You could even have a T2 version!

Yes, a fleet of battleships protected by a squadron of point defense Destroyers would be immune to bombers.

Also, Destroyers are squishy so it wouldn't be difficult to clear the field of enemy Point Defense.

It would actually create a lot of new game play that is extremely newbro friendly as any fleet commander will want some screening destroyers in his/her fleet.

Que fleet commanders screaming "POINT DEFENSE! POINT DEFENSE!" when they see bombers decloaking and the newbros flying Defense Destroyers (“DD”’s or “Dee Dee’s”) screening the fleet hit their PDS modules that were pre loaded with anti bomb ammo.

If you're the newbro who saves the fleet of battleships from the bombing run you will be sat there with a massive erection smile.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#302 - 2015-10-06 11:31:53 UTC
Johnny Twelvebore wrote:
I'd put in another vote for using the existing mod (perhaps with a missile script) as when you go out roaming you have no idea what you're going to come up against and having to make the call between one or the other is annoying. If a ship has the role of disruptor then it should be able to disrupt.

Perhaps in null where you may have an idea what the enemy will bring then the choice of missiles vs turrets disruption would be easier (although I don't think this module is widely used in big fleet warfare) but in low where most of the smaller fights happen and people actually use these modules we certainly have no idea what we will fight.

Just my 2p worth..

Lets really balance this, 1 ECM module that can fit scripts for different races.

Because having to make a call about what race you may be fighting is just so hard and really unfair if your in a small gang. (sarcasm intended)

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#303 - 2015-10-06 12:50:44 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Johnny Twelvebore wrote:
I'd put in another vote for using the existing mod (perhaps with a missile script) as when you go out roaming you have no idea what you're going to come up against and having to make the call between one or the other is annoying. If a ship has the role of disruptor then it should be able to disrupt.

Perhaps in null where you may have an idea what the enemy will bring then the choice of missiles vs turrets disruption would be easier (although I don't think this module is widely used in big fleet warfare) but in low where most of the smaller fights happen and people actually use these modules we certainly have no idea what we will fight.

Just my 2p worth..

Lets really balance this, 1 ECM module that can fit scripts for different races.

Because having to make a call about what race you may be fighting is just so hard and really unfair if your in a small gang. (sarcasm intended)


That would be hilarious.

Broken but still hilarious.
Predator BOA
S H A D O W S
Fraternity.
#304 - 2015-10-06 13:32:57 UTC
When would there be Faction Guidance Computers put into the game?
Plus what would the Stats be on it ?
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#305 - 2015-10-06 14:53:38 UTC
Predator BOA wrote:
When would there be Faction Guidance Computers put into the game?
Plus what would the Stats be on it ?


And I wanna blabla.. You guys and your pimp-my-ride-obsessions Lol

Are you aware that not all modules have / need a faction one? Then some modules have faction ones but the tech2 are more desireable.

I'll take an Estamel's modified every day if we could increase the drop rates a bit..

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#306 - 2015-10-06 20:34:44 UTC
I like the idea of keeping these as separate modules which are strong, but I feel that the current numbers aren't very strong for the missile disruptors. Turret disruptors are much stronger and more of your targets will be turret ships. If anything, the missile disruptors should be equally strong. Having such a powerful disruption module is okay because it doesn't work on every target. That's the big balancing factor with racial ECM jammers. Sensor dampeners and target painters are weaker because they work on pretty much every target.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#307 - 2015-10-06 21:08:46 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:

Lets really balance this, 1 ECM module that can fit scripts for different races.

Because having to make a call about what race you may be fighting is just so hard and really unfair if your in a small gang. (sarcasm intended)

How about one ECM module that doesn't even need scripts.
Lets be really OP and call it something like, ummm.... Multispectrum ECM, yea, that's a good name for it.
Fourteen Maken
Karma and Causality
#308 - 2015-10-06 21:10:53 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
I like the idea of keeping these as separate modules which are strong, but I feel that the current numbers aren't very strong for the missile disruptors. Turret disruptors are much stronger and more of your targets will be turret ships. If anything, the missile disruptors should be equally strong. Having such a powerful disruption module is okay because it doesn't work on every target. That's the big balancing factor with racial ECM jammers. Sensor dampeners and target painters are weaker because they work on pretty much every target.


These are already pretty much an I win button against missile ships.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#309 - 2015-10-06 23:46:28 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:

Lets really balance this, 1 ECM module that can fit scripts for different races.

Because having to make a call about what race you may be fighting is just so hard and really unfair if your in a small gang. (sarcasm intended)

How about one ECM module that doesn't even need scripts.
Lets be really OP and call it something like, ummm.... Multispectrum ECM, yea, that's a good name for it.

Yeah but they don't have the same strength as racial ECM.
So why should ECM be less effective than disruptors?

A module (multispectrum ecm) that is 50% less effective than racial jams, is not balanced if a Tracking Disruptor is able to fit missile scripts.

Eve is about fitting choices not 1 module fits all.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#310 - 2015-10-07 00:03:06 UTC
Spugg Galdon wrote:

Okay, from a previous few posts I have condensed my thoughts on a valid point defense system as an alternative to “Tracking Disruptors” for missiles.

Why don't we have functioning, smart, point defense systems? A point defense system that can shoot down drones and missiles? It would actually make far more sense than a "Missile Tracking Disruptor"

The module would be a simple high slot module, not a launcher or turret. This allows it to be fitted in any high slot. The module could either be sized or could have a very unique fitting attribute in that it uses a percentage of the ships CPU and PG meaning it can be fitted to any sized ship. This style of fitting attribute would reflect in the number of point defense battery’s fitted to a ship dependant on the overall size of the ship.

The racial Point Defense System (PDS) would then have three different ammo types:
Anti Missile
Anti Drone
Anti Bomb

These ammo types would all deal a "special" type of damage. For arguments sake, we'll call it "Snowflake". Snowflake is a special damage type that is "invisible" to the player. You will never see snowflake damage or resists in any “Show Info” window. All items other than missiles, drones and bombs have a 100% resistance to it.

This will prevent PDS being used as an offensive weapon.

Now, the PDS is activated on a target ship, just like defender missiles work now. If you are using anti missile ammo, that ship will require to be launching missiles for it to activate. Same goes for drones. The PDS will then shoot down missiles or drones that the targeted ship “owns” effectively.

If Anti Bomb ammo is loaded, it will work exactly how FoF/Auto Targeting missiles work now with the caveat that their only valid target are bombs. This will allow the ship to effectively defend against bombers without having to target the bombs/bombers themselves.

Guess what else all of this would fix? !!Bombers!!

Ammo reload takes 30 seconds which can give windows of opportunity.

It could even be racial!

Amarr point defense lasers would be best vs missiles - instant damage, good range but poor tracking vs drones at short range.

Caldari point defense missiles would be the "all rounder". Okay vs drones and missiles due to not requiring tracking but travel time

Galente Point Defense Blasters would be best vs drones - poor range but excellent application and damage

Minmatar Point Defense Guns would be another all rounder but lower projection with higher RoF.



This idea has been broached a bunch of times over the past 3-4 years.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#311 - 2015-10-07 00:24:56 UTC
afkalt wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Q: Isn't 45% reduction to both flight time and velocity too much, since the effect stacks?
A: It's true that the effect of the two range attributes stack, so at the maximum (range scripted, on a bonused ship with links and heat) level the Missile Disruptor would reduce the total effective missile range by ~70%. However this is actually still less powerful than current Tracking Disruptors, which provide a -86% reduction in both optimal and falloff when using the same ship and bonuses.


But how many turrets have a 50/50 split between optimal and falloff?

Most are stacked to one or the other.

No-one cares if lasers lose a little falloff/projectiles lose some optimal.

Missiles do not have this luxury as time*speed are married. Plus you're making flat out out-running the missiles even more viable (when it has no right to be, as speed already hits application) by attacking speed.

Likewise, I cannot outrun gun rounds.

Finally, I CANNOT swap long range ammo into most launcher systems (javelin aside)...all, ALL turrets have the option to reload long range ammunition.

If you MUST slash it by so much, nuke flight time only please, it's already frustrating enough watching cruisers run away from heavy missiles on non-speed bonused ships.

It's not a combined bonus of optimal/falloff. It's a 86% loss for optimal and 86% loss for fallof.
Nafensoriel
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#312 - 2015-10-07 02:43:17 UTC
To the people trying to say point defense or active missiles launched at other active missiles are a great idea... Please take a moment to google 3D math equations that would relate to your ideas before posting them. Then google what these equations would do to a server with 700+ people in a fight. Then realize that any time such a system was used en masse you would cripple the local nodes even with small fleet fights. Not to mention that the "tics" the server uses to calculate such things would innately cause them to basically fail over 30% of the time.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#313 - 2015-10-07 06:23:42 UTC
Rowells wrote:
afkalt wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Q: Isn't 45% reduction to both flight time and velocity too much, since the effect stacks?
A: It's true that the effect of the two range attributes stack, so at the maximum (range scripted, on a bonused ship with links and heat) level the Missile Disruptor would reduce the total effective missile range by ~70%. However this is actually still less powerful than current Tracking Disruptors, which provide a -86% reduction in both optimal and falloff when using the same ship and bonuses.


But how many turrets have a 50/50 split between optimal and falloff?

Most are stacked to one or the other.

No-one cares if lasers lose a little falloff/projectiles lose some optimal.

Missiles do not have this luxury as time*speed are married. Plus you're making flat out out-running the missiles even more viable (when it has no right to be, as speed already hits application) by attacking speed.

Likewise, I cannot outrun gun rounds.

Finally, I CANNOT swap long range ammo into most launcher systems (javelin aside)...all, ALL turrets have the option to reload long range ammunition.

If you MUST slash it by so much, nuke flight time only please, it's already frustrating enough watching cruisers run away from heavy missiles on non-speed bonused ships.

It's not a combined bonus of optimal/falloff. It's a 86% loss for optimal and 86% loss for fallof.


Yes, he said. I read it differently.

My concerns about unbonused still stand though.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#314 - 2015-10-07 06:25:34 UTC
Nafensoriel wrote:
To the people trying to say point defense or active missiles launched at other active missiles are a great idea... Please take a moment to google 3D math equations that would relate to your ideas before posting them. Then google what these equations would do to a server with 700+ people in a fight. Then realize that any time such a system was used en masse you would cripple the local nodes even with small fleet fights. Not to mention that the "tics" the server uses to calculate such things would innately cause them to basically fail over 30% of the time.



Yes. The only way would be a ship with bonuses to smart bombs to make a more effective firewall. Reduce cycle time/cap/etc.

However I would contend with these mods coming, fire walling should go completely anyway.
Spugg Galdon
Last Rites.
Infinite Pew
#315 - 2015-10-07 08:15:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Spugg Galdon
Nafensoriel wrote:
To the people trying to say point defense or active missiles launched at other active missiles are a great idea... Please take a moment to google 3D math equations that would relate to your ideas before posting them. Then google what these equations would do to a server with 700+ people in a fight. Then realize that any time such a system was used en masse you would cripple the local nodes even with small fleet fights. Not to mention that the "tics" the server uses to calculate such things would innately cause them to basically fail over 30% of the time.



BiaB would probably make this a non issue.

Thing is we already have this in game (defender missiles). It's just not effective.

Also, [AFAIK] grouped missiles don't work as a group of multiple missiles. They look like they are but they are not. They are a "Super Missile" with a a cumulative HP pool and damage value that is the sum of all the missiles. You can then lower this damage value by lowering the HP pool with SB's or defender missiles. The client also renders this visually by showing you number of missiles left in the super missile.

The other side of the coin is also that the server needs to do all these calculations constantly for missiles in flight. If you destroy those missiles the calculations no longer need to be carried out so the problem of server load would self medicate.

I also wonder how missile disruption modules would effect missiles already in flight and then when falloff range begins to make the effectiveness of said modules sporadic, would the server then not be forced to "re-calculate" on and off causing more load?
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
#316 - 2015-10-07 09:56:47 UTC
i think introducing this new mods without a missile rebalance is a mistake;
wasn't the missile lowish dps a trade for the "they always hit" memo?

also CCP just increased missile hp some time ago to make them less vulnerable to smartbombs: now decreasing velocity will make them even more vulnerable to smartbombs... and since citadel weapons will be aoe missiles and smartbombs i don't think missiles ships will be in a good spot... Roll

if CCP want to make missiles ships pve only, well they can do it ofc, i just don't think it will be very good for the game; but again, what do i know...
Lugh Crow-Slave
#317 - 2015-10-07 10:39:34 UTC
gascanu wrote:
i think introducing this new mods without a missile rebalance is a mistake;
wasn't the missile lowish dps a trade for the "they always hit" memo?

also CCP just increased missile hp some time ago to make them less vulnerable to smartbombs: now decreasing velocity will make them even more vulnerable to smartbombs... and since citadel weapons will be aoe missiles and smartbombs i don't think missiles ships will be in a good spot... Roll

if CCP want to make missiles ships pve only, well they can do it ofc, i just don't think it will be very good for the game; but again, what do i know...



Not that your later point isn't valued but hasn't ccp done 3 or 4 balance pages on missiles recently building up to this
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#318 - 2015-10-07 10:46:11 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:

Not that your later point isn't valued but hasn't ccp done 3 or 4 balance pages on missiles recently building up to this

You mean damage buff to HML and at the same time stacking penalties nerf to all missiles? Right.

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville

Mike Whiite
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#319 - 2015-10-07 11:07:52 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
gascanu wrote:
i think introducing this new mods without a missile rebalance is a mistake;
wasn't the missile lowish dps a trade for the "they always hit" memo?

also CCP just increased missile hp some time ago to make them less vulnerable to smartbombs: now decreasing velocity will make them even more vulnerable to smartbombs... and since citadel weapons will be aoe missiles and smartbombs i don't think missiles ships will be in a good spot... Roll

if CCP want to make missiles ships pve only, well they can do it ofc, i just don't think it will be very good for the game; but again, what do i know...



Not that your later point isn't valued but hasn't ccp done 3 or 4 balance pages on missiles recently building up to this



That is part of why I'm so skeptical.

read back on the last Balance round, it got a great announcement on the o7 show, a thread on this forum, with a first days feedback. that they would be nerfed.

-Testers had to find out that stacking penalties where introduce to the point people had to point out it wasn't in the original patch notes, that got a reaction.

-The guidance modules came out as quick and cheap copy paste of turret guidance modules, even the bpo's where build around turret guidance modules, hilarious data cores needed or production.
I believe they have still the same fitting costs (which are high on CPU, the same thing that is high on launchers and shields)

- scripts weren't available

when it finally did work it was quite clear the modules did preform not very well, aside from a few niche fits.

and although asked, no feedback what so ever?

and here 3 months later comes and answer, we're going to put extra anti missile modules in. and to compensate we're going to buff our new module a bit.

The current missiles ships weren't designed around this new system, which means they need to drop other things to compensate, further lowering their DPS and or Tank.





gascanu
Bearing Srl.
#320 - 2015-10-07 11:18:26 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
gascanu wrote:
i think introducing this new mods without a missile rebalance is a mistake;
wasn't the missile lowish dps a trade for the "they always hit" memo?

also CCP just increased missile hp some time ago to make them less vulnerable to smartbombs: now decreasing velocity will make them even more vulnerable to smartbombs... and since citadel weapons will be aoe missiles and smartbombs i don't think missiles ships will be in a good spot... Roll

if CCP want to make missiles ships pve only, well they can do it ofc, i just don't think it will be very good for the game; but again, what do i know...



Not that your later point isn't valued but hasn't ccp done 3 or 4 balance pages on missiles recently building up to this


balance pages yes, good changes... not really
just look at overall usage, except for 2-3 ships with very strong bonuses there are no room for missile doctrines; they have a spot on small solo pvp using rockets/light missiles, and that's where this distruptors will do most of they're dmg;
one more thing, guns have optimal and faloff, usually one much larger than the other; so a 200mm autocanon will be hurt in his fallof, yes, but no one will care about 50m reduction into his optimal, while missiles having only optimal will take double hit